Paley, a longtime fixture at selectmen’s meetings, said the ruling applies to 20 projects approved since the town adopted the Community Preservation Act in 2002 – including a softball field and the walking and bike path approved at the annual town meeting in April.

But John Bulman, chairman of the town’s community preservation committee, responded with a letter that called Paley’s accusations “reckless” and said they were based on a basic misunderstanding of the law and the Superior Court ruling.

The Community Preservation Act allows towns to impose a property-tax surcharge of up to 3 percent to generate revenue for preservation of open space and historic resources and the creation of affordable housing.

The money can also be used to pay for recreation projects, but only to acquire new fields or property for recreation, not to maintain or improve existing fields.

According to Paley, the October court ruling said Community Preservation Act money can be used to put land to recreational use only if that land was purchased with CPA money.

Paley said the two projects approved in April, the ballfield and pathway, violate that decision because they are improvements to recreation land that was not bought with Community Preservation Act money.

“While I am not accusing the board of intentional law breaking, ignorance of the law is no excuse,” Paley wrote. “This money that was voted since 2003 belongs to the taxpayers of Scituate and was appropriated wrongfully and should be returned.”

Bulman rejected Paley’s assertion that any current projects should be halted and said the time to challenge the expenditures has passed. He also said the state Department of Revenue and Supreme Judicial Court have upheld project such the ones Paley is calling into question..

Selectmen told Paley that they would have town counsel review the matter.

Kaitlin Keane may be reached at kkeane@ledger.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.